See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356139324

Searching for a more valid form of parental rating scales of preschoolers’

intellectual giftedness – development and validation of the Preschooler’s
Ability Rating Scale (PARS)

Article · August 2021

DOI: 10.51561/cspsych.65.4.317

CITATIONS READS

0 108

4 authors, including:

Michal Jabůrek Hynek Cígler

Masaryk University Masaryk University
13 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adam Tapal
Masaryk University
17 PUBLICATIONS   101 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelling Mechanisms and Outcomes in Psychotherapy as Complex Dynamic Systems View project

Behavioral-economics experiments in marketing and management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hynek Cígler on 16 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Československá psychologie 2021 / ročník LXV / číslo 4
DOI: 10.51561/cspsych.65.4.317

SEARCHING FOR A MORE VALID FORM OF PARENTAL

RATING SCALES OF PRESCHOOLERS’ INTELLECTUAL
GIFTEDNESS – DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
THE PRESCHOOLER’S ABILITY RATING SCALE (PARS)
MICHAL JABŮREK, HYNEK CÍGLER, ŠÁRKA PORTEŠOVÁ, ADAM ŤÁPAL
Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies, Brno
AB ST R AC T
Objectives. The aim of this study was to develop
a new parental rating scale for identification of
intellectually gifted preschoolers (4 to 6 years
of age). This new scale, the Preschooler’s Abil-
ity Rating Scale (PARS), consists of two parts
– PARS-PRE, which follows the principle of
precocity and inquires about the age at which
giftedness-relevant behavior appeared for the
first time; and PARS-CUR, which focuses on
the current level of abilities.
Participants and setting. In total, 263 Czech
mothers and 90 children participated in the main
study.
Hypotheses. PARS will have a two-dimensional
structure corresponding to its two parts. Both
parts will significantly correlate with scores on
the Woodcock-Johnson: International edition II
(WJ IE II COG).
Statistical analysis. 1. Item analysis; 2. Explora-
tory factor analysis; 3. Correlational analyses
with WJ IE II COG; 4. ROC analysis to evaluate
the specificity and sensitivity.
Results. Factor analysis suggests a three-factor
structure – two of the factors correspond to the
scale’s original parts, and the third factor re-
flects early reading and counting (4 items from
the precocity part). The diagnostic accuracy of
the first two factors is similarly low (rPRE = .33,
rCUR = .25), but substantially higher for the early
reading/counting factor (rLIT = .52). Addition-
ally, parental ratings are, in general, based more
on children’s verbal abilities than their nonver-
bal abilities. Given the low criterial validity, the
authors do not recommend utilizing the PARS
scale in practical setting, however, the conclu-
sions are useful for further development of sim-
ilarly-minded scales.
Study limitations. Only 90 children were admin-
istered the WJ IE II COG – the small sample
size affects the precision of parameter estimates.
The parentsʼ sample consists only of mothers.
key words:
parental assessment of children,
rating scale,
preschool children,
giftedness,
precocity principle
klíčová slova:
rodičovské hodnocení dětí,
posuzovací škála,
předškolní děti,
nadání,
princip předčasné zralosti

INTRODUCTION
Identification is one of the most important and most discussed topics in the field of
giftedness (e.g., Callahan et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2017; Plucker & Callahan, 2014).
It is the first of many steps in the care for gifted children, since it is the necessary re-
quirement for subsequent selection of optimal form of intervention. The intervention
itself need not necessarily be an inclusion into a special educational track, accelera-
tion, or enrichment (e.g., Southern et al., 1993) – even the day-to-day interaction with
the child in a classroom matters. If teachers are aware of the special needs of their
students, they can react and appropriately adapt their behavior.

Submitted: 1. 4. 2020; M. J., Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta sociálních studií, Institut výzkumu dětí
mládeže a rodiny, Joštova 10, 602 00 Brno; e-mail: jaburek@fss.muni.cz
This work was supported by The Czech Science Foundation – GA CR [GA 17-14715S].

Metodické studie / 317

 One of the issues most discussed in this regard is the age from which identifica-
tion of giftedness becomes meaningful (e.g., Heller & Schofield, 2008). Some au-
thors challenge the notion of early identification, primarily due to the instability of the
measured abilities (e.g., Jackson & Klein, 1997; Robinson & Robinson, 1992). How-
ever, some longitudinal studies (Freeman, 2001; Gross, 2004) suggest that several
difficulties that might emerge from unsuitable pedagogical approaches towards gifted
students (such as academic underachievement or social behavior problems; Heller,
2004) can be avoided by early identification. For this reason, most experts recommend
beginning with identification before the child enters primary school (e.g., Gross, 1999,
2004; Heller, 2004). With respect to these findings, we believe it is important to look
for ways to make early identification more accessible and more credible.
It is important to note that we view giftedness as possession of extraordinary cogni-
tive abilities. We are aware of multidimensional models of giftedness (e.g., Sternberg
& Kaufman, 2018) and in no way object to them; nonetheless, the definition was nar-
rowed down to that of intellectual giftedness for the purposes of this paper.
Parental Rating Scales for the Identification of Giftedness
Although intelligence tests and achievement tests are most often used in the assess-
ment of giftedness (NAGC, 2015), the use of rating scales can offer some advantages.
Such scales are relatively quick to administer, are less costly, their use often does
not require direct supervision by trained personnel, the subject does not need to be
assessed in person, and so forth. The most commonly used rating scales are those
designed for teachers, parents, peers, and the gifted students themselves (Cao et al.,
2017). Since our study focusses on children of preschool age, the raters considered
here are teachers and parents.
Parents seem the most suitable raters for preschool-aged children as, unlike teach-
ers, they spend more time with their children and can observe their behavior and
abilities in a natural environment. Parents can also provide vital information unavail-
able to teachers (Chan, 2000), such as closely witnessing the child’s development and
attainment of developmental milestones (Cao et al., 2017). Parental rating has been
shown to predict reliably a wide range of child behavior (e.g., Funderburk et al., 2003;
Mooney et al., 2005), especially that connected with disabilities (Glascoe, 2000).
In the area of intellectual giftedness, however, the precision and validity of rat-
ing scales have always been the subject of discussion and research (e.g., Acar et al.,
2016), and, in some cases, have been seriously doubted (e.g., Jarosewich et al., 2002).
It is true that the accuracy of parental ratings tends to be lower than that of teachers’
ratings (Acar et al., 2016), and it is also for these reasons that parental rating scales
(especially those for parents of preschoolers) are somewhat rare and underutilized in
practice (Cao et al., 2017).
However, several reasons exist for continuous research in this area, as it could lead
to the development of valid and reliable parental rating scales in the future. The first
set of reasons is economic. The use of rating scales can be much more economically
efficient than the use of standardized ability tests, especially when parents are the
ones who carry out the rating, as this distributes the task between many parents and
does not present a significant workload for a single rater. At the same time, parents are
typically more motivated to contribute to the assessment than teachers. The second
set of reasons is systemic. As noted before, it is most efficient to begin with giftedness
assessment as early as possible, i.e., in pre-school age. Naturally, the most suitable
raters in this age are parents, who know their child and its behavior arguably best and
are well-motivated to carry out assessment. A good-quality rating scale for parents of

318 / Metodické studie

preschoolers could become an integral part of the system for education of the gifted.
If publicly available, such a scale could serve initial screening purposes and refer par-
ents to a more complex assessment if their child would score above a certain thresh-
old. The third set of reasons relate to the incremental validity rating scales have over
ability tests. Unlike intelligence tests, rating scales focus on broader spectrum of abili-
ties and behaviors, which might be more valuable in terms of predictive validity (e.g.,
better at predicting children’s success in gifted programs or educational attainment,
see Acar et al., 2016). The fourth and final set of reasons represent the demands the as-
sessment instruments place on children. Unlike ability tests, rating scales require time
and mental investment from adults and can thus eliminate potential negative effects
assessment might have on children.
Goal of this paper
Due to the unavailability of quality parental rating scales focused on preschoolers, the
primary goal of this study is to develop one. Considering the typical validity and diag-
nostic accuracy of such instruments, which is generally relatively low, we are looking
for alternative ways to design such a scale. The majority of similarly-minded rating
scales focuses on the child’s current abilities and behavior. However, based on a thor-
ough analysis of existing scales and a detailed literature review, we have identified a
less usual design of these instruments, which follows the so-called principle of pre-
cocity and, as such, inquires about the onset of certain specific behaviors. It is worth
noting that only a small minority of ratings scales developed so far have followed this
design, although they often showed promising psychometric properties (see below).
The scale we developed, the Preschooler’s Ability Rating Scale (PARS), thus con-
stitutes of two parts – the first part focuses on the development of behavior and abili-
ties of the rated child (i.e., follows the principle of precocity), while the second part
focuses on their current level. In line with the standard methodology for evaluating
diagnostic accuracy (e.g., Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007; Pfeiffer & Petscher, 2008),
both parts and the scale as a whole were evaluated with respect to three criteria: cor-
relation with test scores on a complex intelligence test, specificity (the percentage of
children identified as non-gifted out of the total number of non-gifted children in the
sample), and sensitivity (the percentage of gifted children identified as gifted out of
the total number of gifted children in the sample).
Rating Scales Focusing on the Current Behavior or Abilities
As stated above, one of the two possible forms of giftedness rating scales focuses on
current behavior or abilities. Instruments following this form assume that with a spe-
cific kind of giftedness comes a specific set of behaviors and abilities. For intellectual
giftedness, these could be advanced language and reasoning skills, quick understand-
ing and fast learning, insatiable curiosity, etc. (e.g., Perleth et al., 2000). If a child
exhibits such behaviors and skills with sufficient frequency and extent, or exhibits
them at consistently above-average levels relative to his/her peers, it is assumed that
he or she might be gifted.
This form is adhered to all of the most frequently used rating scales (according to Cao
et al., 2017) – the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS; Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2003), the HOPE
Teacher Rating Scale (Gentry et al., 2015), Scales for Rating the Behavioral Character-
istics of Superior Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli et al., 2002), Gifted and Talented Evalu-
ation Scales–2nd edition (GATES–2; Gilliam & Jerman, 2015) and the Gifted Evalua-
tion Scale–2nd edition (GES-2; McCarney & Anderson, 1998). However, none of these
scales is tailored to be used by parents. Although the “school form” of the GRS (GRS-S)

Metodické studie / 319

was also validated on a parent sample (Lee & Pfeiffer, 2006; Li et al., 2008; Petscher &
Li, 2008), it was originally developed for use by teachers, which explains its frequent
focus on school-related behavior. Two scales not listed above but intended for use by
parents are the Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS; Ryser & McConnell, 2004;
more heavily focused on academic skills and thus more appropriate for teachers) and
the Characteristics of Giftedness Scale (CGS; Silverman, 1993), which is practically the
only existing parental scale for preschoolers. As such, the shortage of scales available
for parents of preschoolers is evident (Cao et al., 2017).
As far as the scales’ diagnostic accuracy is concerned, moderately strong correla-
tions are often reported. For instance, the SIGS scale manual (Ryser & McConnell,
2004) reports a correlation of r = .51 for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–
Third Edition (WISC–III; Wechsler, 1991), and the Czech version (Havigerová, 2014)
of the CGS scale (Silverman, 1993) correlates r = .45 with the same test. Clearly,
diagnostic accuracy of these scales is limited. We assume one of the reasons for this to
be the obvious fact that ratings carry a certain error on the rater’s side.
One potential source of error is carrying stereotypes about the rated subjects. For
example, boys might be better rated in mathematical abilities than girls, although their
abilities are comparable (Frome & Eccles, 1998; Herbert & Stipek, 2005; Tiedemann,
2000). Similarly, a halo effect might occur (e.g., Babad et al., 1989), manifested by
observing high correlations between facets of giftedness that should not be strongly
related, such as intellectual and artistic or social abilities (Benson & Kranzler, 2017;
Neber, 2004). Although this effect is stronger in teachers, it can also be observed in
parents (Chan, 2000; Petscher & Li, 2008). Additionally, parents’ conscious or uncon-
scious desire to have their children recognized as gifted can impact measurement (Cao
et al., 2017). We assume that the second possible form of rating scales could, given its
design, be less susceptible to these biases.
Rating Scales Based on the Precocity Principle
Some empirical research in the area of giftedness suggest that exceptionally gifted
individuals can show, in comparison with normal population, certain developmental
peculiarities (e.g., Dalzell, 1998; Koshy & Robinson, 2006). Studies that report this
are not only retrospective (e.g., Gross, 2004), but also longitudinal (e.g., Gottfried et
al., 2006). Generally, this can be referred to as the so-called precocity principle (e.g.,
Brody & Stanley, 2005), where it is assumed that gifted children exhibit certain be-
haviors earlier than it is usual. Behaviors most frequently mentioned in this respect
are early reading or early interest in letters (e.g., Harrison, 2004), and early count-
ing (e.g., Silverman & Golon, 2008), however, in general this means faster cognitive
development and a higher level of cognitive abilities in early age, relative to peers
(Steiner & Carr, 2003). Additionally, some studies suggest this need not be limited
to cognitive abilities, but could also affect, for example, motor skills (Gross, 2004;
Robinson, 2008).
Nevertheless, scales that would specifically inquire about the age range in which
such giftedness-relevant behavior first occurred are nonexistent. Those relatively
rare research efforts (Benito & Moro, 1999) resulted in the development of virtu-
ally the only well-known scale containing items that concern the development
of behavior – the Personality Development of Preschool Children Questionnaire
(PDPCQ; Stapf & Stapf, 1990, as cited in Breik, 1997) from Germany.
The PDPCQ itself is not a novel scale, and its use is not widespread, even though
its reported characteristics are promising. For example, Čihounková (2012) reports a
correlation of r = .54 with the international edition of the Woodcock–Johnson II: Tests

320 / Metodické studie

of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IE II COG; Ruef & Furman, 2010; Ruef et al., 2010) and
Nováková (2005) reports a correlation of r = .61 with the Stanford-Binet test (SB;
Thorndike et al., 1995). A Jordanian version (Breik, 1997) reports a range of correla-
tions from r = .75 to r = .82 with the SB test.
However, the precocity-based design of rating scales has its share of limitations
and possible sources of bias. Retrospective inquiry could be less reliable than rating
of present events due to memory effects (Dale et al., 1989; Gross, 2000). Furthermore,
it remains questionable whether precocity in some area of development is connected
with later intellectual giftedness strongly enough for to be of value in real-world as-
sessment setting. Given the relatively high correlation of the PDPCQ with complex
intelligence tests, we consider it important to try to shed more light on this issue.

METHODS
Preschooler’s Ability Rating Scale (PARS)
The Preschooler’s Ability Rating Scale (PARS) is intended for parental assessment
the behaviors and abilities of 4 to 6-year old children. The scale consists of two parts.
One part (PARS-PRE) is based on the principle of precocity, while the other part
(PARS-CUR) includes questions on the current frequency or intensity of a specific
behavior or ability.
The scale’s items were developed based on a detailed analysis of extant rating
scales and thorough literature review on both possible forms of rating scales, as de-
scribed above. Their content was chosen to correspond with that which is, according
to available empirical research, most closely related to intellectual giftedness. Anoth-
er important criterion for item development was intelligibility and unambiguity. The
items were primarily phrased to assess behaviors easily observable by parents. This
approach distinguishes the PARS from scales such as the GRS-P (Pfeiffer & Jarose-
wich, 2003) or the SIGS (Ryser & McConnell, 2004), which are mostly focused on
academic abilities. Table 1 provides an overview of the items, their wording, content
area, and references to empirical studies which support the link between the particular
behavior and giftedness.
The pilot version of the PARS consisted of 37 items: 20 in the PARS-PRE and 17
in the PARS-CUR. The scale was piloted on 65 parents of children between four and
six years 11 months of age. Based on item analysis, items with low corrected item-
total correlations were discarded. The remaining 26 items formed the basis of the final
version: 12 in the PARS-PRE and 14 in the PARS-CUR. The response scale of the
PARS-PRE items was five-point (1 – later/our child is not able to yet, 2 – during the
4th year, 3 – between 3–4 years, 4 – between 2.5–3 years, 5 – before the age of 2.5
years), while that of the PARS-CUR was four-point (1 – Definitely no, 2 – Likely no,
3 – Likely yes, 4 – Definitely yes).
In further analyses, raw summed scores for both subscales and the entire scale were
used, since item loadings or weights estimated using factor or IRT models would
likely be biased due to the small sample size (e.g., Dobie et al., 1986). The use of
summed scores, however, is a standard approach taken with psychological scales. The
scale’s reliability is discussed in the Results section.
Woodcock-Johnson: International Edition II – Tests of Cognitive Abilities
(WJ IE II COG)
The WJ IE II COG (Ruef & Furman, 2010; Ruef et al., 2010) contains localized tests
selected from the Woodcock–Johnson III: Test of Cognitive Abilities (Woodcock et

Metodické studie / 321

 Table 1 Overview of the Items of Both Parts of PARS
Support in
Item ID Item wording General topic research literature
A) PARS-PRE – part focusing on the development of behavior or abilities (precocity principle)
Our child understood the meaning of all words indicating family relations – brother, sister,
PRE01
grandfather, gradmother, uncle, or aunt – approximately:
Our child was able to solve problems focused on the relationships between words, such as
PRE02 “car drives, but an airplane (flies)”, “the opposite of up is (down)”, “the opposite of inside is Oğurlu & Çetinkaya, 2012; Rogers &
(outside)”, etc., approximately: Vocabulary and Silverman, 1998; Sankar-DeLeeuw,

322 / Metodické studie

Our child correctly understood semantic categories and was able to correctly complete sen- verbal reasoning 2004; Silverman, 2003; Silverman &
PRE03 tences such as “a table is (a piece of furniture)”, “a lion is (an animal)”, “a rose is (a flower), Golon, 2008
(a flower) is a plant”, etc., approximately:
PRE04 Our child was able to correctly name six colors approximately:
PRE05 Our child began to be interested in how things are called approximately:
PRE06a Our child began to walk independently without support approximately: Gross and fine
Gross, 2000, 2004; Robinson, 2008
PRE 07a Our child was able to use scissors independently approximately: motor skills
PRE08 Our child was able to count to ten approximately:
PRE09 Our child was able to correctly solve a mathematical problem such as 6+2=8 approximately: Harrison, 2004; Oğurlu & Çetinkaya,
Mathematical
PRE10a Our child was able to correctly solve a mathematical problem such as 6-2=4 approximately: 2012; Rogers & Silverman, 1998; Sil-
abilities
PRE11a Our child was able to correctly solve a mathematical problem such as 6x2=12 approximately: verman, 2003; Silverman & Golon, 2008
PRE12a Our child was able to correctly solve a mathematical problem such as 6:2=3 approximately:

PRE13a Our child said his/her first continuous sentence (with three or more words) approximately:
Speech Gottfried et al., 2006; Gross, 1999, 2004
Our child was able to hold a longer conversation (at least 3 minutes long) with an adult ap-
PRE14
proximately:
PRE15 Our child was able to recognize most of the capital print letters approximately:
Harrison, 2004; Oğurlu & Çetinkaya,
Our child began to correctly read entire words written in print letters (i.e., correctly connect Interest in letters
PRE16 2012; Rogers & Silverman, 1998; Sil-
the letters into a word) approximately: and reading
verman & Golon, 2008
PRE17 Our child began to correctly read entire sentences (written in print letters) approximately:
Harrison, 2004; Rogers & Silverman,
Our child was able to correctly assemble a jigsaw puzzle consisting of at least 20 pieces ap- Visuo-spatial
PRE18 1998; Silverman, 2003; Silverman &
proximately: ability
Golon, 2008
Our child was able to correctly tell time from an analog wall clock (quarter past, half past, Spatial and
PRE19a Stapf & Stapf, 1990; as cited in Breik,
quarter to, ...) approximately: temporal orien-
a
1997
PRE20 Our child was able to correctly distinguish between left and right approximately: tation
 Support in
Item ID Item wording General topic research literature
B) PARS-CUR – part focusing on current behavior or abilities
Our child is highly interested in the world around him/her (e.g., how things work or how they
CUR01
came to be, looking for connection between things and events, etc.). Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Harrison,
Our child is highly interested in the meaning of new, complicated words (words that similarly Curiosity 2004; Rogers & Silverman, 1998; Sil-
CUR02
old children are not interested in). verman, 2003
CUR03 Our child likes to try new activities (e.g., hobbies, games, etc.).
CUR04 The interests of our child are very different from those of his/her peers. Interests more
Rogers & Silverman, 1998; Silverman,
appropriate for
CUR05 Out child prefers different kinds of games than his/her peers. 2003
older children
CUR06 Our child is able to focus on solving a difficult task for an extended period of time. Intrinsic motiva- Gottfried & Gottfried, 2004; Gottfried
CUR07 Our child likes to learn new poems, songs, jokes, or stories. tion et al., 2006
CUR08 When our child is convinced he/she is right, he/she can use substantive arguments. Harrison, 2004; Oğurlu & Çetinkaya,
Verbal abilities
2012; Passow & Frasier, 1996; Tucker &
CUR09 Our child frequently surprises me with unusual questions or thoughts. and reasoning
Haferistein, 1997
Before our child begins an activity (e.g., solo play, playing with others, a trip, a visit, etc.), he/ Schraw & Graham, 1997; Steiner &
CUR10 Metacognition
she likes to plan its course and potential risks Carr, 2003

CUR11a Our child prefers the friendship of older children. Oğurlu & Çetinkaya, 2012; Sankar-
Preference for DeLeeuw, 2004; Silverman, 2003;
CUR12 Our child prefers to converse with adults rather than his/her peers. older persons Silverman & Golon, 2008; Rogers &
Silverman, 1998
CUR13 When our child learns a new game (e.g., a card game or a board game), it is extensively Rules and fair-
interested in its rules.. Kitano, 1985; Silverman & Golon, 2008
ness
Harrison, 2004; Oğurlu & Çetinkaya,
2012; Rogers & Silverman, 1998;
CUR14 Our child has outstanding memory (e.g., for poems, jokes, or stories). Memory
Silverman, 2003; Silverman & Golon,
2008
Our child is very creative (e.g., likes to invent new games, come up with original stories, Harrison, 2004; Oğurlu & Çetinkaya,
CUR15 Creativity
jokes, etc.). 2012; Rogers & Silverman, 1998
Neihart, 2008; Rogers & Silverman,
CUR16a Our child has a refined sense of humour (e.g., understands jokes quickly). Humor
1998; Silverman, 2003

Metodické studie
Socioemotional
CUR17a Our child is highly sensitive to the feelings and needs of others. Oğurlu & Çetinkaya, 2012; Porter, 2005
abilities
a
These items were included in the pilot study but subsequently dropped.

/ 323
al., 2003). This test is a complex intelligence test based on the C-H-C theory (e.g.,
McGrew, 2009). According to this theory, cognitive abilities can be distinguished on
three levels or strata: 1) highly differentiated, “narrow” abilities (e.g., deductive rea-
soning); 2) more general “broad” abilities (e.g., fluid intelligence); and 3) general
ability (the “g factor”). The WJ IE II COG comprises eight subtests measuring the
narrow abilities, which are also representations of seven broad abilities: Verbal abili-
ties, Memory for names, Spatial relations, Sound patterns, Concept formation, Visual
matching, Numbers reversed and Quantitative reasoning. A score for three test scales
(Verbal abilities, Reasoning skills, Cognitive effectiveness) and the overall IQ can
also be calculated. See the supplemental material for an overview of the subscales,
scales, and their sample statistics.
Data Collection and Participants
The study participants were Czech children between 4 and 6 years 11 months of age
and their parents. The data were collected by two different means. The first part of
the sample was obtained in 17 kindergartens across the country. The study’s aims also
necessitated the recruitment of children who appear to be above average in their intel-
lect or, ideally, children who are intellectually gifted. As such, the second part of the
sample was obtained in a local Giftedness Centre1 ran by the Department of Psychol-
ogy, Masaryk University. Data from the two samples were analysed jointly.
The scale was completed by 277 parents, out of whom only 14 (~5%) were fa-
thers. Given the small number of participating fathers, we decided to keep only the
responses of mothers, and thus, conclusions made here should be generalized entirely
to mothers. Out of 263 mothers, only 90 gave consent to the administration of the
WJ IE II COG.
Boys constituted 56% (n = 147) of the children in the sample. Sixty (23%) of the
sampled children were four-year-olds, 110 (42%) were five-year-olds, and 93 (35%)
were six-year-olds.
Naturally, we wanted to establish whether the sample size would be sufficient for
conducting a reasonable exploratory factor analysis. One of the commonly reported
rules of thumb is a subjects:items ratio of 4:1 or larger (MacCallum et al., 2001).
However, the optimal ratio is influenced by many other factors that are not as easily
estimable beforehand, such as item communalities. With high communalities, stable
solutions can be obtained even with relatively smaller samples (see also Mundfrom
et al., 2005). With 26 items comprising the PARS and with two expected factors (i.e.,
an item/factor ratio of 13:1), the minimum sample size can be estimated at 35 to 60
respondents, based on the overall size of item communalities. As such, we consider
the size of our sample sufficient even if there were a higher number of extracted fac-
tors (see below).
To test our hypotheses, the rated children had to be categorized with respect to the
presence or absence of intellectual giftedness, for which the score on the WJ IE II
COG served as a criterion. The cutoff total score of 130 (i.e., two standard deviations
above the mean) was chosen for this purpose, as it is a commonly accepted standard
in the educational field. This cutoff is also used in standard practices for identifying
gifted children in the Czech Republic. Out of the total of 90 children who were admin-
istered the WJ IE II COG, nineteen reached this cutoff.

1
The Giftedness Centre is a counselling organisation for parents who are in need for services related
to giftedness and gifted children.

324 / Metodické studie

Data Analysis
First, we performed an item analysis of the PARS scale and investigated its factor
structure using IBM SPSS 23 with an ordinal factor analysis plugin (Basto & Pereira,
2012). Despite our expectations, the analysis suggested three factors: one (here re-
ferred to as F1/LIT) with three items measuring early reading and one item measuring
early mathematical abilities; one (here referred to as F2/PRE) that best corresponds to
the original PARS-PRE part; and one (here referred to as F3/CUR) that corresponds
to the original PARS-CUR part (for more details, see Results).
Subsequently, we estimated the internal consistency of the three factors and the
total score. To assess the relationship between the PARS scale and the WJ IE II COG,
we performed correlational analyses. Finally, an ROC analysis was performed us-
ing the MedCalc Statistical Software (version 18.11.6) to evaluate the specificity and
sensitivity of the PARS scale (and its factors) as a screening tool for identifying in-
tellectually gifted children. The optimal cutoff score was selected using the Youden
index (Youden, 1950) to maximize sensitivity and specificity values. Using pairwise
comparisons of the ROC curves according to DeLong, DeLong, and Clarke-Pearson
(1988) for all PARS factors, we investigated whether any one of the factors was more
useful for the identification of intellectually gifted children than the other factors.

R E S U LT S
Item Analysis, Factor Structure, and Reliability
The item analysis did not reveal any items of problematic nature. The corrected item-
total correlations ranged from r = .31 to r = .66 (Md = .48). Prior to the actual factor
analysis, a number of methods - parallel analysis (Horn, 1965), optimal coordinates,
comparison data analysis (Ruscio & Roche, 2012), and Velicer’s MAP (for an over-
view, see Courtney, 2013) - were used to determine the optimal number of factors
to extract. We expected a 2-factor structure (corresponding to the two PARS scale
parts), however, the most plausible number of suggested factors was three. An or-
dinal exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations was performed, with
ML estimation and oblique Geomin rotation. The factor loadings of CUR04 (the dif-
ferences of child’s interests from those of their peers) and CUR06 (the child’s abil-
ity to concentrate when solving a difficult task) items from the PARS-CUR subscale
were close to zero, as such, the items were excluded from further analyses. The fit
indices of the model without said items were as follows: GFI = .859, RMSR = .053,
RMSP = .086. The first factor consisted of four items from the PARS-PRE part fo-
cused on early reading (PRE15 - knowledge of capital print letters, PRE16 - reading
of words, PRE17 - reading of sentences) and mathematical abilities (PRE09 - adding
two numbers); therefore, we labeled this factor F1/LIT (“literacy”). The second factor,
F2/PRE, was comprised by the remaining eight items of the PARS-PRE part, likely
due to their highly similar format. The third factor, F3/CUR, consisted of the 12 items
from the PARS-CUR part. Table 2 lists the factor and total score reliabilities along
with other descriptives. For factor loadings of all items, see Table 3.
Correlational Analyses
Table 4 shows correlations between the PARS factors and the WJ IE II COG scores.
The median correlations for the F1/LIT, F2/PRE, and F3/CUR factors were r = .42,
r = .26, and r = .19, respectively. The median correlation for the total PARS score was
r = .31. While interpreting the results, it is important to consider the inflation of Type
I error.

Metodické studie / 325

 Table 2 Factor Loadings of PARS Items
Item F1/LIT F2/PRE F3/CUR
PRE16 -.95 -.04 -.03
PRE17 -.76 .00 -.04
PRE15 -.64 .05 .10
PRE09 -.46 .25 .01
PRE02 .08 .89 -.04
PRE03 .03 .79 .04
PRE01 -.03 .62 .02
PRE14 .01 .57 .12
PRE04 -.10 .55 .04
PRE05 -.01 .52 .24
PRE08 -.17 .46 .00
PRE18 -.09 .41 -.03
CUR12 .05 -.08 .72
CUR09 .01 -.02 .69
CUR02 -.04 .15 .66
CUR01 .09 .09 .65
CUR08 .05 -.02 .61
CUR14 -.15 .03 .54
CUR15 -.07 .00 .53
CUR10 -.15 -.14 .48
CUR03 .05 .09 .43
CUR13 -.15 .00 .35
CUR05 -.29 .03 .33
CUR07 .00 .05 .32

Table 3 Factor Structure of the PARS Scale and Factor Reliabilities

Number of highly Cronbach Min/Maxa
Factor Factor description Ma SDa
loading items alpha
Early literacy and math
F1/LIT 4 .75 4/15 5.82 2.19
skills
F2/PRE 8 Precocity .85 10/40 29.09 5.55
Current level of
F3/CUR 12 .84 18/47 35.72 5.49
abilities and behavior
Total score 24 .91b
37/95 70.62 10.82
a
raw score. Stratified Cronbach alpha.
b

326 / Metodické studie

 Table 4 Correlations of the Three PARS Factors with WJ IE II COG Subtests and Scales
PARS WJ IE II COG
F1/ F2/ F3/ Total Ver- Mem- Spatial Sound Concept Visual Num- Quant. Reas. Cogn. Total
LIT PRE CUR PARS bal ory for relations patterns formation matching bers reasoning skills effect. IQ
score ab.a names reversed
F1/LIT 1
F2/PRE .49** 1
**
F3/CUR .39 .51** 1
Total PARS .63** .86** .85** 1
score
Verbal ab.a .46** .44** .37** .52** 1
Memory for .40** .32** .12 .32** .38 1
names
Spatial rela- .41** .30** .24* .37** .56** .24* 1

tions
Sound pat- .32** .16 .17 .24* .33** .32** .31** 1
terns
Concept .26* .26* .21* .30** .68** .39** .56** .31** 1
formation
Visual .45** .16 .09 .24* .38** .41** .33** .18 .46** 1
matching
Numbers .42** .15 .11 .23* .53** .36** .61** .47** .52** .47** 1
reversed
Quant. rea- .59** .26* .19 .37** .62** .48** .62** .39** .61** .66** .71** 1
soning
Reas. skills .45** .35** .27* .42** .69** .60** .72** .68** .85** .48** .67** .72** 1
** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Cogn. effect. .49 .17 .12 .26 .55 .43 .59 .43 .56 .73 .95 .79 .69** 1

Metodické studie
Total IQ .52** .33** .25* .42** .783** .56** .72** .58** .79** .62** .85** .82** .93** .89** 1
Note. n1 = 263 for PARS, n2 = 90 for WJ IE II COG. These are uncorrected correlations.
a
Verbal abilities are also included as a scale, * p < .05. ** p < .01.

/ 327
ROC Analysis and ROC Curves Comparison
To compare better the diagnostic accuracy of the factors and the total PARS score, we
conducted an ROC analysis. Attaining the WJ IE II COG cut-off score served as the
classification variable. See Table 5 for an overview of the ROC analyses.
Table 5 Results of the ROC Analyses

95% CI Sensiti- 95% CI 95% CI

AUC SE (AUC) vity (sensitivity) Specificity (specificity)
F1/LIT .764 .059 .662 – .847 57.89 33.5 – 79.7 84.51 74.0 – 92.0
F2/PRE .678 .070 .571 – .772 68.42 43.4 – 87.4 64.79 52.5 – 75.8
F3/CUR .610 .080 .501 – .711 52.63 28.9 – 75.6 70.42 58.4 – 80.7
Total PARS score .688 .075 .581 – .781 57.89 33.5 – 79.7 83.10 72.3 – 91.0
Note: n = 90; AUC = area under the ROC curve

Pairwise comparisons of the AUC values showed two statistically significant dif-
ferences – between the F1/LIT and F3/CUR factors (p < .05), and between the F3/
CUR factor and the total PARS score (p < .05).

S U P P L E M E N TA L M AT E R I A L
Table with detailed information on the WJ IE II COG battery (along with our sample
statistics) and the data that support the findings of this study are openly available on
figshare at https://figshare.com/s/779a873d7dc8159f3a3a.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The primary purpose of the study was to develop a new rating scale for identification
of intellectual giftedness aimed at parents of preschoolers. When the summed score
of the new scale, PARS, was used, its sensitivity and specificity reached 57.89% and
83.10%, respectively. With respect to sensitivity, it can be seen that almost half of the
children who were identified as gifted using WJ IE II COG were not identified as such
using PARS. As such, unfortunately, the PARS scale is not currently suitable for use
in practice.
We believe, however, that our study can still offer interesting conclusions useful
for the development of rating scales in the domain of giftedness. Using pairwise com-
parisons of ROC curves, we investigated whether any one of the PARS factors is more
closely related to cognitive abilities. We did not find a significant difference between
the F2/PRE factor (which is based on the precocity principle and focuses on the devel-
opment of behavior or abilities) and the F3/CUR factor (which focuses on current be-
havior and abilities). This result is fairly surprising, as the two PARS parts markedly
differ in form and in their underlying principles (by focusing on different aspects of
a child’s abilities and behavior). Moreover, the F2/PRE factor is more loosely related
to the test of cognitive abilities than we expected (when compared to correlations
reported for the PDPCQ scale, which also follows the principle of precocity; Stapf &
Stapf, 1990; as cited in Breik, 1997). It should be noted, however, that the correlations
with the WJ IE II COG are affected by the reliability of the F2/PRE and F3/CUR fac-
tors (although they were comparable in this respect). Furthermore, four PARS items
originally thought to comprise the PARS-PRE part formed a stand-alone factor, F1/

328 / Metodické studie

LIT, and thus were not included in these comparison. It should be noted, then, that the
F2/PRE factor is not identical (from a content perspective) to the PARS-PRE and, as
far as content validity goes, does not represent all important aspects of the precocity
principle. At the same time we would like to point out that, by comparing factors, we
are not actually solely comparing the diagnostic accuracy of different item formats,
but also of different item contents – as the items of the two factors focus on different
behaviors and abilities.
Given the relatively weak relationship of the F2/PRE and F3/CUR factors with
scores on the intelligence test, it can be concluded that parental rating is affected
by many other influences. For ratings on the F3/CUR factor, one could expect bias
stemming from the parent’s conscious or unconscious desire to have their children
recognized as gifted (Cao et al., 2017). The F2/PRE factor items are formulated more
objectively, it is, however, probable that its accuracy is affected in some other way.
As stated before, the accuracy of retrospective inquiry can be worse due to memory
effects (Dale et al., 1989; Gross, 2000). We can hypothesize that similar sources of
bias that might influence the rating of present events can be detrimental in the case of
the F2/PRE factor as well. For instance, parents can retrospectively view their child’s
development in a more positive light if convinced about the child’s extraordinary
abilities. In this respect, the relatively high internal consistency of the PARS-PRE is
noteworthy, even though it is questionable whether development in all the inquired
areas is indeed so related. This argument is put forth by Perleth, Schatz, and Mönks
(2000), who suggest formulating the baseline probability of observing each such “in-
dicator” of giftedness among gifted children and using this information in the form of
weights while scoring responses.
The idea that some behavior is more important than others is also corroborated
by us in this study. The expected two-factor structure of PARS was not supported in
favour of a solution containing an additional “literacy” factor, F1/LIT. This factor is
constituted by three items tapping early reading and one item tapping early count-
ing – all originally designed as parts of the PARS-PRE. Seemingly, the item content
overshadowed item form in this case, giving way to an additional factor. The F1/
LIT factor showed stronger correlation with the WJ IE II COG scores in general and
has shown to be a better predictor of whether a child was classified as “intellectually
gifted” than the F3/CUR factor when comparing the ROC curves. Although not the
purpose of this study, such a result is in line with other findings (for review, see Olson
et al., 2006) reporting the relationship between early reading and counting and above-
average performance in intelligence assessment. Based on the above, it seems that the
degree to which a rating scale relates to scores on an intelligence test is less a matter
of the principle from which it stems and more of the content of its items. Our research
suggests that school-oriented behaviors (e.g., writing or counting) better represent
early intellectual giftedness than other behaviors.
We have also found a relatively strong relationship of all three PARS factors with
the verbal abilities subtest of the WJ IE II COG (see Table 4). In the cases of F1/LIT
and F2/PRE, this observation might be due to items content, as most items in these
factors are related to verbal abilities. However, this explanation cannot be used in case
of F3/CUR, where such items constitute a minority. Previous research on teachers’
ratings (e.g., Hernández-Torrano et al., 2013; Hodge & Kemp, 2006) suggests that rat-
ing is based more on verbal abilities of children than on nonverbal abilities. According
to some authors (Koshy & Robinson, 2006; Silverman & Golon, 2008), parents are
more sensitive towards those behaviors of their child that are seen as distinctive mile-
stones and normative expectations, like vocabulary or reading abilities, rather than

Metodické studie / 329

less salient abilities such as spatial reasoning or memory. The child’s verbal abilities,
then, can have a higher weight in ratings overall.
Limitations
One of the most substantial limitations of this study is the sample used. Only 90 chil-
dren were administered the WJ IE II COG. The small sample size affects the precision
of parameter estimates (AUC, sensitivity, specificity, etc. – to make the imprecision
more explicit, we presented confidence intervals in Table 5), which should be con-
sidered when interpreting the results. Second, the sample itself does not represent the
general population, certainly not the subjects for whom the WJ IE II COG scores were
available – most of these subjects (78%) were recruited from the local Giftedness
Centre, and the children score above average on the WJ IE II COG (total score mean
of M = 117.03). Thus, our results are of limited generalizability. However, given how
these participants were recruited, the parents should represent rather typical users of
rating scales if used as screening tools for the identification of intellectually gifted
children.
In terms of sample composition, it should be noted that mostly mothers participated
in our research, to the extent to which we only retained ratings from mothers for the
final analyses to achieve greater sample homogeneity. This should be kept in mind
when interpreting the results.
It is likely that some of the PARS items will show differential item functioning in
different populations (e.g., the jigsaw puzzle item might work differently for children
from less intellectually stimulating background). Thus, for any valid future use of the
instrument, the measurement invariance over different populations also needs to be
assessed.
Lastly, it might be emotionally difficult for some parents to rate one’s child as
average or even below average in certain skills, especially if these skills are deemed
important. In our study during the data collection phase, two parents voiced their
unwillingness to fill out the PARS-CUR scale, as they did not wish to rate their child
negatively. This hesitance is also apparent in the distribution of responses to an option-
al question that was also administered, “Do you think your child is in many respects
more skillful than his/her peers?” to which only two parents answered “definitely no”.
As such, some parents might overestimate their children’s skills and abilities, or they
might refuse to participate in data collection altogether if they feel that their responses
should be negative. This limitation would make the PARS-PRE more suitable for cer-
tain forms of screening, as it does not require direct comparison with the child’s peers.
Precocity-based scales require a certain type of comparison as well (i.e., comparing a
child’s development with normal development), but parents need not directly perform
the comparison, as they simply report when a specific behavior first occurred.

C O N C L U S I O N , P R A C T I C A L I M P L I C AT I O N S A N D F U RT H E R R E S E A R C H
The primary goal of this study was to develop a new instrument for parental iden-
tification of intellectually gifted preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years. On the basis of re-
ported psychometric properties, however, we do not recommend using the instrument
in practice. Although there seems to be a significant link between parental ratings and
intelligence test scores, the two methods seem, to some extent, to identify as gifted
quite different children (e.g., Acar et al., 2016). Although this conclusion is rather pes-
simistic, our study also brings some positive findings. It is clear that a certain group of
items shows a higher diagnostic accuracy than others. These are the precocity-based
items on early reading and early mathematical abilities, which were found to be the

330 / Metodické studie

most closely related to the scores on an intelligence test in our study. Thus, we assume
that early school-oriented behaviors might be an important predictor of intellectual
giftedness and could serve as an easy-to-observe indicator of potential giftedness.
These signs should be routinely included in parental rating scales. Apart from their
large correlation with the intelligence test scores, we consider including items of this
kind in rating scales important for two reasons: to increase content validity and to en-
able the rater not to perform the potentially emotionally tasking comparison of their
child with the child’s peers.
It would be worthwhile to develop and validate a rating scale focusing solely on
early school-oriented behaviors such as early reading and mathematical skills. Each of
these areas should be investigated in greater detail, for example, early reading should
cover all pre-school reading-related skills (such as phonological awareness, the alpha-
betic principle, letter knowledge, text comprehension, etc.) and other relevant factors
(such as whether a child began to read by themselves).
The design of this study was aligned with how are rating scales commonly used
in practice – as screening instruments which help identify students for subsequent,
more thorough and time-consuming, intelligence assessment (see Renzulli & Gaesser,
2015). It is true that this approach is consistently criticised by some authors since the
80’s (Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986) well into the present (e.g., Gentry & Mann, 2008).
According to these authors, the profiles of gifted children identified using intelligence
tests and ratings scales differ and these methods should be administered in parallel
rather than in sequence. Assuming this is true, it would not even make much sense
to judge validity and accuracy of rating scales with intelligence tests as criterion. It
would be more suitable to focus on predictive validity, such as the ability of a rating
scale to predict success in special gifted education programs or success in later aca-
demic or professional life (Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986; Renzulli & Gaesser, 2015).
Such longitudinal studies are, however, very financially demanding. Alternatively,
one could give up on screening using rating scales in favor of mass testing using
achievement and intelligence tests. Commonly, the tests used for this purpose include
TOMAGS (Ryser & Johnsen, 1998) or SAGES-3 (Johnsen & Corn, 2019), in the
Czech Republic specifically TIM3–5 (Cígler et al., 2017) or Invenio (Jabůrek et al.,
2020), however it is also possible to use any sufficiently difficult group-administered
intelligence test, such as CFT 20-R (Fajmonová et al., 2015).
REFERENCES
Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Con- identification of intellectually gifted students.
sistency of the performance and nonper- Gifted and Talented International, 14(2), 80-
formance methods in gifted identification: 91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.1999.1
A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted 1672912
Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81-101. https://doi. Benson, N. F., & Kranzler, J. H. (2017). Another
org/10.1177/0016986216634438 look at the construct validity of the Gifted
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. Rating Scales: Preschool/kindergarten and
(1989). Nonverbal communication and school forms. Journal of Psychoeducational
leakage in the behavior of biased and unbi- Assessment. Advance online publication. htt-
ased teachers.  Journal of Personality and ps://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917710377
Social Psychology,  56(1), 89. https://doi. Breik, W. D. (1997). Identification of gifted pre-
org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.89 school children. A first empirical study with
Basto, M., & Pereira, J. M. (2012). An SPSS R- Jordanian children in Amman [Unpublished
Menu for ordinal factor analysis. Journal of doctoral dissertation]. The Eberhard Karls
Statistical Software, 46(4), 1-29. https://doi. Universität.
org/10.18637/jss.v046.i04 Brody, L., & Stanley, J. (2005). Youths who rea-
Benito, Y., & Moro, J. (1999). An empirically- son exceptionally well mathematically and or
based proposal for screening in the early verbally. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson

Metodické studie / 331

 (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 20-37).
Cambridge University Press.
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2017).
Describing the status of programs for the
gifted: A call for action. Journal for the Edu-
cation of the Gifted, 40(1), 20-49. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0162353216686215
Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017). As-
sessment in gifted education: A review of
the literature from 2005 to 2016.  Journal of
Advanced Academics, 28(3), 163-203. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17714572
Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification
procedures of gifted students by teacher rat-
ings: Parent ratings and student self-reports in
Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11, 69-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713669176
Cígler, H., Jabůrek, M., Straka, O., & Portešová,
Š. (2017). Psychometrická analýza TIM3–5
– Testu pro identifikaci nadaných žáků v
matematice pro 3.–5. třídu. Masarykova uni-
verzita. https://munispace.muni.cz/library/
catalog/book/968
Courtney, M. G. R. (2013). Determining the
number of factors to retain in EFA: Using
the SPSS R-Menu v2.0 to make more judi-
cious estimations. Practical Assessment, Re-
search & Evaluation, 18(8), 1-14. https://doi.
org/10.2147/JHL.S35483
Český statistický úřad (2014). Úroveň vzdě-
lání obyvatelstva podle výsledků sčítání
lidu (Population education level accor-
ding to census results). https://www.czso.
cz/documents/10180/20536250/17023214.
pdf/7545a15a-8565-458b-b4e3-e8b-
f43255b12?version=1
Čihounková, J. (2012). Možnosti identifikace
nadaných předškolních dětí rodiči (Possibili-
ties for parents how to identify their gifted
child). [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Masaryk University.
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S., & Morisset,
C. (1989). The validity of a parent report in-
strument of child language at twenty months.
Journal of Child Language, 16(02), 239-249.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900010394
Dalzell, H. J. (1998). Giftedness: Infancy to
adolescence – a developmental perspective.
Roeper Review, 20(4), 259-264. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783199809553903.
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-
Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas
under two or more correlated receiver oper-
ating characteristic curves: A nonparametric
approach. Biometrics, 837-845. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2531595
Dobie, T., McFarland, K., & Long, N.
(1986). Raw score �����������������������
and factor score multi-
ple regression: An evaluative comparison.
Educational and Psychological Measu-
332 / Metodické studie
rement, 46(2), 337-347. https://doi.org/
10.1177/001316448604600207
Fajmonová, V., Hönigová, S., Urbánek, T., &
Širůček, J. (2015). CFT 20-R - Cattelův test
fluidní inteligence. Hogrefe-Testcentrum.
Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up.
David Fulton.
Frome, P. M., & Eccles J. S. (1998). Parents’
influence on children’s achievement-related
perceptions. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 74(2), 435-452. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.435
Funderburk, B. W., Eyberg, S. M., Rich, B.
A., & Behar, L. (2003). Further psycho-
metric evaluation of the Eyberg and Behar
rating scales for parents and teachers of
preschoolers. Early Education and Develop-
ment, 14(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15566935eed1401_5
Gentry, M., & Mann, R. L. (2008). Total school
cluster grouping & differentiation: A compre-
hensive, research-based plan for raising stu-
dent achievement & improving teacher prac-
tices. Creative Learning Press.
Gentry, M. L., Pereira, N., Peters, S. J., McIn-
tosh, J. S., & Fugate, C. M. (2015). HOPE
Teacher Rating Scale (manual): Involving
teachers in equitable identification of gifted
and talented students in K-12. Prufrock.
Gilliam, J. E., & Jerman, O. (2015). Gifted and
Talented Evaluation Scales: A norm-refer-
enced procedure for identifying gifted and
talented students [Assessment Instrument]
(2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
Glascoe, F. P. (2000). Early detection of devel-
opmental and behavioral problems. Pediat-
rics in Review, 21(8), 272-280. https://doi.
org/10.1542/pir.21-8-272
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004).
Toward the development of a concep-
tualisation of gifted motivation. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 48, 121-132. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698620404800205
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D.
W. (2006). The Fullerton Longitudinal Study:
A long-term investigation of intellectual and
motivational giftedness. Journal for the Edu-
cation of the Gifted,  29(4), 430-450. https://
doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-244
Gross, M. U. M. (1999). Small poppies:
Highly gifted children in the early years.
Roeper Review, 21(3), 207-214. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783199909553963
Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Issues in the cognitive
development of exceptionally and profound-
ly gifted individuals. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International
handbook of research and development of
giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 179-192).
Pergamon Press.
Gross, M. U. M. (2004).  Exceptionally gifted
children (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early child-
hood: The search for complexity and connec-
tion. Roeper Review, 26, 78-84. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783190409554246
Havigerová, J. M. (2014). Vyhledávání na-
daných dětí v předškolním věku – Škála
charakteristik nadání a její adaptace na české
podmínky [Identification of gifted preschool-
ers - Czech adaptation of Characteristics of
giftedness scale]. Grada publishing, a.s.
Heller, K. A. (2004). Identification of gifted and
talented students. Psychology Science, 46,
302-323.
Heller, K. A., & Schofield, N. J. (2008). Iden-
tification and nurturing the gifted from an
international perspective. In S. I. Pfeiffer
(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children
(pp. 93-114). Springer US. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_6
Herbert, J., & Stipek, D. (2005). The emer-
gence of gender differences in childrenʼs
perceptions of their academic competence.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 26(3), 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appdev.2005.02.007
Hernández-Torrano, D., Prieto, M. D., Fer-
rándiz, C., Bermejo, R., & Sáinz, M. (2013).
Characteristics leading teachers to nominate
secondary students as gifted in Spain. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 57, 181-196. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986213490197
Hodge, K. A. & Kemp, C. R. (2006). Recogni-
tion of giftedness in the early years of school:
perspectives of teachers, parents, and chil-
dren. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
30, 164-204. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-
2006-259.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the
number of factors in factor analysis. Psycho-
metrika, 30, 179-185. Retrieved from http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14306381
Jabůrek, M., Portešová, Š, & Straka, O. (2020).
Vyvíjíme GIS - Invenio, screeningový on-
line systém pro vyhledávání rozumově na-
daných dětí pomocí psychodiagnostických
počítačových her. Školní poradenství v praxi,
3, 30-33.
Jackson, N. E., & Klein, E. J. (1997). Gifted per-
formance in young children. In N. Colangelo,
& G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (2nd ed., pp. 460-474). Allyn and
Bacon.
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J.
(2002). Identifying gifted students using
teacher rating scales: A review of existing
instruments.  Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment,  20(4), 322-336. https://doi.
org/10.1177/073428290202000401
Johnsen, S. K., & Corn, A. L. (2019). Screen-
ing assessment for gifted elementary students
(3rd ed.). PRO-ED.
Kitano, M. K. (1985). Ethnography of a
preschool for the gifted: What gifted
young children actually do.  Gifted Child
Quarterly,  29(2), 67-71. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698628502900204
Koshy, V., & Robinson, N. M. (2006). Too
long neglected: Gifted young children. Eu-
ropean Early Childhood Education Re-
search Journal, 14(2), 113-126. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13502930285209951
Lee, D., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2006). The reliability
and validity of a Korean-translated version
of the Gifted Rating Scales.  Journal of Psy-
choeducational Assessment,  24(3), 210-224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282906287829
Li, H., Lee, D., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y.
(2008). Parent ratings using the Chinese
version of the Parent Gifted Rating Scales–
School form reliability and validity for Chi-
nese Students.  Educational and Psychologi-
cal Measurement, 68(4), 659-675. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013164407313365
MacCallum R. C., Widaman K. F., Preacher K.
J., & Hong S. (2001). Sample size in factor
analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 36(4), 611-637. https://
doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327906MBR3604_06
McCarney, S. B., & Anderson, P. D. (1998).
Gifted Evaluation Scale: Technical manual
(2nd ed.). Hawthorne Educational Servi-
ces.
McGrew, K. (2009). CHC theory and the hu-
man cognitive abilities project: Standing on
the shoulders of the giants of psychometric
intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Ryser, G., & Pierce,
C. D. (2005). Reliability and validity of
the behavioral and emotional rating scale-
Second Edition: Parent rating scale. Chil-
dren & Schools, 27(3), 147-155. https://doi.
org/10.1093/cs/27.3.147
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L.
(2005). Minimum sample size recommenda-
tions for conducting factor analyses. Inter-
national Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
National Association for Gifted Children.
(2015). 2014-2015 state of the states in gifted
education: Policy and practice data. http://
www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20re-
ports/2014-2015%20State%20of%20the%20
States%20%28final%29.pdf
Neber, H. (2004). Teacher identification of stu-
dents for gifted programs: Nominations to a
summer school for highly-gifted students.
Psychology Science, 46(3), 348-362.
Metodické studie / 333
Neihart, M. (2008). Identifying and providing
services to twice exceptional children. In S. I.
Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in chil-
dren (pp. 115-137). Springer US.
Nováková, K. (2005). Identifikace nadaných
předškolních dětí (Identification of gifted
preschoolers). [Unpublished master’s thesis].
Masaryk University.
Olson, L. A., Evans, J. R., & Keckler, W. T.
(2006). Precocious readers: Past, present, and
future. Journal for the Education of the Gift-
ed,  30(2), 205-235. https://doi.org/10.4219/
jeg-2006-260
Oğurlu, Ü., & Çetinkaya, Ç. (2012). Identifica-
tion of preschool gifted children characteris-
tics based on parents’ observations. The On-
line Journal of Counselling and Education, 1,
41-56.
Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward
improving identification of talent potential
among minority and disadvantaged students.
Roeper Review, 18(3), 198-202. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783199609553734
Perleth, Ch., Schatz, T., & Mönks, F. J. (2000).
Early identification of high ability. In K. A.
Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F.
Subotnik (Eds.), International Handbook of
Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed., pp. 297-316).
Pergamon.
Petscher, Y., & Li, H. (2008). Measurement in-
variance of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales:
Teacher and parent forms. Journal of psych-
oeducational assessment, 26(3), 274-286.
https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0734282907303873
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted
rating scales. The Psychological Corporation.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2007). The Gift-
ed Rating Scales–School Form. An analysis
of the standardization sample based on age,
gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 51, 39-50. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0016986206296658
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifying
young gifted children using the gifted rating
scales—Preschool/kindergarten form.  Gifted
Child Quarterly, 52(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0016986207311055
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Re-
search on giftedness and gifted education.
Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390-406. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527244
Porter, L. (2005). Gifted young children: A guide
for teachers and parents (2nd ed.). Open Uni-
versity Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. (1986).
The legacy and logic of research on the
identification of gifted persons. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 30, 20-33. https://doi.
org/10.1177/001698628603000104
334 / Metodické studie
Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, A. H. (2015). A
multi criteria system for the identification
of high achieving and creative/productive
giftedness. Revista de Educación, 368, 96-
131. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-
RE-2015-368-290
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Cal-
lahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg,
K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral
characteristics of superior students: Revised
edition. Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of
gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer
(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp.
33-51). Springer US.
Robinson, N. M., & Robinson, H. (1992). The
use of standardized tests with young gifted
children. In P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum
(Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 141-170).
Ablex.
Rogers, M., & Silverman, L. K. (1998). Recog-
nizing giftedness in young children. Gifted
Development Center. (ERIC Document Re-
production Service No. ED 428471).
Ruef, M., & Furman, A. (2010). Woodcock-
Johnson: Mezinárodní edice II. Uživatelská
příručka: Česká edice (Woodcock-Johnson:
International edition II. User’s manual: Czech
edition). http://www.woodcock-munoz-foun-
dation.org/pdfs/nn-wjie2man-cz.pdf
Ruef, M., Furman, A., & Muñoz-Sandoval, A.
(2010). Woodcock-Johnson Czech Interna-
tional Edition II, Czech editors: J. Mareš, E.
Vondráková, J. Zapletalová, D. Heider, & J.
Burešová. The Woodcock-Muñoz Founda-
tion.
Ryser, G. R., & Johnsen, S. K. (1998). Test of
mathematical abilities for gifted students.
PRO-ED.
Ryser, G. R., & McConnell, K. (2004). Scales
for identifying gifted students. Prufrock Press
Inc.
Ruscio, J., & Roche, B. (2012). Determining
the number of factors to retain in an explora-
tory factor analysis using comparison data
of known factorial structure. Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 24(2), 282-292. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0025697
Sankar-DeLeeuw, N. (2004). Case studies
of gifted kindergarten children: Profiles of
promise. Roeper Review, 26, 192-207. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554270
Schraw, G., & Graham, T. (1997). Helping
gifted students develop metacognitive aware-
ness. Roeper Review, 20(1), 4-8. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02783199709553842
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Characteristics of gift-
edness scale. Gifted Development Center.
Silverman, L. K. (2003). Characteristics of
 Giftedness Scale: Research and review of the
literature. (Available from the Gifted Devel-
opment Center, 1452 Marion Street, Denver,
CO 80218).
Silverman, L. K., & Golon, A. S. (2008). Clini-
cal practice with gifted families. In S. I.
Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in chil-
dren (pp. 199-222). Springer US.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Stanley, J. C.
(1993). Acceleration and enrichment: The
context and development of program options.
In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow
(Eds.), International handbook of research
and development of giftedness and talent (pp.
387-409). Pergamon Press.
Steiner, H. H., & Carr, M. (2003). Cognitive
development in gifted children: Toward a
more precise understanding of emerging dif-
ferences in intelligence.  Educational Psy-
chology Review,  15(3), 215-246. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1024636317011
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (2018).
Theories and conceptions of giftedness. In
S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness
in children: Psychoeducational theory, re-
search, and best practices (2nd ed., pp. 29-
47). Springer, Boston, MA.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J.
M. (1995). Stanfordský Binetův inteligenční
test – IV. revize (Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale – 4th edition). Psychodiagnostika.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereo-
types and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of
children’s concept of their mathematical abil-
ity in elementary school. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 92(1), 144-151. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.144
Tucker, B., & Haferistein, N. L. (1997). Psy-
chological intensities in young gifted chil-
dren. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 66-75. htt-
ps://doi.org/ 10.1177/001698629704100302
Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III: Wechsler Intel-
ligence Scale for Children — third edition:
manual. The Psychological Corporation.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew., K. S., Mather, N.,
& Schrank, F. A. (2003). Woodcock-Johnson
III diagnostic supplement to the tests of cogni-
tive abilities. Riverside Publishing.
Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diag-
nostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32-35. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-
CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3
View publication stats
SOUHRN
P átrá n í po va lidně jš í formě rodič ovs ké
š k á ly pro pos ouz e ní inte le ktové ho na-
d á n í v pře dš kolním vě ku – vývoj
a v a lidiz a c e me tody Pre s c hoole r ’s
A b ility R a ting Sc a le (PA R S)
Cíle. Cílem studie bylo vytvoření nové posuzo-
vací škály pro identifikaci nadaných předškolá-
ků ve věku 4-6 let. Tato nová metoda, Preschoo-
ler’s Ability Rating Scale (PARS), má dvě části.
První je PARS-PRE, která vychází z principu
předčasné zralosti a její položky se zaměřují na
věk, ve kterém rodiče poprvé pozorovali určité
projevy chování, které mohou souviset s nadá-
ním. Druhá je PARS-CUR, která se zaměřuje na
aktuální úroveň schopností.
Vzorek. Do hlavní části studie bylo zapojeno
celkem 263 matek a 90 dětí z České republiky.
Hypotézy. Posuzovací škála PARS bude mít
dvoudimenzionální strukturu odpovídající jejím
dvěma částem. Obě části budou silně korelovat
se skóry baterie Woodcock-Johnson: Internatio-
nal edition II (WJ IE II COG).
Analýzy. 1. Položková analýza; 2. Explorační
faktorová analýza; 3. Korelace s WJ IE II COG;
4. ROC analýza ke stanovení specificity a sen-
zitivity.
Výsledky. Výsledky faktorové analýzy naznačují
třídimenzionální strukturu – dva faktory odpoví-
dající dvěma částem škály a třetí faktor tvořený
4 položkami části PARS-PRE, které se zaměřují
na časné čtení a počítání. Diagnostická přesnost
dvou hlavních faktorů je srovnatelně nízká (rPRE
= .33, rCUR = .25), výrazně vyšší je u třetího fak-
toru (rLIT = .52). Dá se říci, že obecně je rodi-
čovské hodnocení více založeno na verbálních
schopnostech dítěte než na těch neverbálních.
S  ohledem na nízkou kriteriální validitu nelze
doporučit škálu PARS pro využívání v  praxi,
závěry mohou být nicméně užitečné při vývoji
podobně zaměřených nástrojů v budoucnu.
Limity. Baterie WJ IE II COG byla administro-
vána pouze 90 dětem – takto malý vzorek ovliv-
nil přesnost odhadu parametrů. Do rodičovské-
ho hodnocení škálou PARS se zapojily pouze
matky.
Metodické studie / 335